Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Scaremongering and Muslims as ciphers.

Over at Vox Nova, everyone’s favorite ultramontane Liberal singles out this website for its “scaremongering” and “stupid jihadism rhetoric.” The very strong implication of the post is that we have little to fear from Islam, and that “humanitarian relief,” “more visas to study and work in the US, and better trade links,” along with a cessation of “anti-Islamic bombast,” and “domestic xenophobia,” will mitigate whatever minor troubles we do face.

The peculiar thing here is that Morning’s Minion shares with his Neoconservative opponents an assumption which we fundamentally reject: namely, that the character of Islamic doctrine and practice depends upon the actions of the West. It is our view that this is only true on the margins. America led by an Obama administration could pursue each of the goals Morning’s Minion has laid out — an end to reckless wars and rhetoric, more humanitarian relief, more of those precious student visas — and still the doctrines of Jihad, Sharia and Dhimma would remain. In short, Minion joins with those he professes to oppose in regarding Muslims as mere ciphers for Western policy disputes, mere automata responding solely to external stimuli.

The force of this assumption prevents a true appreciation of the antiquity and endurance of these doctrines, and thus the persistence of their influence on the world. The Jihad has taken many forms; it has assumed the guises of every age, reflected the character of the peoples it inspired and impelled to war; it has adapted and adjusted to times and place: But in its essentials it has remained unchanged. As Chesterton so wisely put it:

A void is made in the heart of Islam which has to be filled up again and again by a mere repetition of the revolution that founded it. There are no sacraments; the only thing that can happen is a sort of apocalypse, as unique as the end of the world; so the apocalypse can only be repeated and the world end again and again. There are no priests; and yet this equality can only breed a multitude of lawless prophets almost as numerous as priests. The very dogma that there is only one Mahomet produces an endless procession of Mahomets.

It will not do to understand Islam and its doctrines of Holy War and Holy Subjugation exclusively through the lens of Western politics. Nor will it do to conflate warnings about the peril of these doctrines with support for the democratic imperialism that has characterized much of our post-9/11 foreign policy.

It is a legitimate criticism to note that he has not read the book he pans - but how much Weigel does one really want to read? How many times can one read that Just War doctrine really does legitimate the Bush Doctrine, while retaining one's lunch?

Paul: of course, there will be radical Muslims who define their belief system in terms of subjugating the other. The point I was trying to make is that these people have virtually no support-- it would be like defining Christianity based on the twisted eschatalogical principles of people like Hagee and Parsley.

My problem with the use of "jihadism" on this blog is that it plays into a dualism that is quite dominant in American discourse. It ignores the fact that grace can infuse and tranform nature, and that they are not separate entities. In other words, we need to deal with Islam by radiating the love of Christ, not by opposition. If you want to get into the theology, yes, I think Islam is dubiously voluntarist, and its explicit rejection of the incarnation and the resurrection of Christ lead to some serious errors -- but these views should not guide our dealings in the public square, especially since much of the "jihadist" rhetoric is ultimately paranoid. After all, I have more serious theological disagreements with Hindus, Buddhists, and Mormons.

"The point I was trying to make is that these people have virtually no support..."

A completely, wildly, and ridiculously false statement, one contradicted by such mountains of evidence that is easily accessible, and one that shows that MM is so uninformed, misinformed, or unwilling to be informed on this subject as not to be worth arguing with. IMO.

Lydia, if you had bothered to read the article I linked to, you might see the facts. Or you could just persist in your post-modern relativism where ideology and prior beliefs trump facts any time. I wonder how many Muslims you actually know...

it would be like defining Christianity based on the twisted eschatalogical principles of people like Hagee and Parsley.

Well, that's an interesting comparison. Sure, it would be an error to treat all Christians as followers of Hagee and Parsley. But it wouldn't be true to say that Hagee and Parsley have "virtually no support" -- indeed, the only reason you've heard of them in the first place is because they are popular in part of the Christian community. Moreover, you have certainly shown yourself willing to point the finger at Hagee and Parsley as reason to condemn McCain (e.g., http://vox-nova.com/2008/03/12/john-mccains-dangerous-friends/ ), and even to use Hagee and Parsley to make a much broader condemnation of "American exceptionalism, the Calvinist-Gnostic theology that divides the world into light and darkness, with America on the right side."

So what's wrong with someone who makes your exact same points, except as to radical Muslim clerics?

In other words, we need to deal with Islam by radiating the love of Christ, not by opposition.

If this means in the very same manner in which you've demonstrated such non-opposition with respect to abortion, then I take it that it won't be long before you'll be petitioning on behalf of radical Muslims (and perhaps even suspected & known terrorists, for that matter) to radiate such love of Christ, as you have done so with how you're accommodating pro-abortion candidates to assume even the U.S. presidency in spite of your being "Pro-Life".

I admit, the former sounds a bit far-fetched and risible, but considering the reality of the latter; who knows just how far accommodating you would be given your willingness to compromise in order to "radiate the love of Christ".

My gosh! I've _never read anything_ that tells me _facts_ about Islam and how much (how little) support there is for jihad among Muslims. No, no, I can get _facts_ only by reading _MM's_ link. That will tell me the facts. And if I'm not instantly converted to calling Islam a religion of peace hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists, I'm a "postmodernist" and a "relativist."

Ah, yes, I've read the article MM links. And all I can say is...Well, no, I can't say that in public. Okay, here's a sanitized version: What a joke. Perhaps we should let Robert Spencer and/or Hugh Fitzgerald take out the trash by responding to it. Or not. Why would I wish that on Spencer and Fitzgerald?

As a matter of doctrine, there is nothing in Christianity which compares to Jihad or Dhimma. That is just a fact. Nor is my purpose to engage in abstract theological debate. As a matter of public reason, accessible to all men, these doctrines as false and wicked; as such, it is a duty of Christians to oppose them. We show Muslims no love, Christlike or otherwise, by ignoring this wickedness, by pretending for propriety's sake that they have no antiquity in Islam. I have theological differences with Mormons and Buddhists too; but I am content to leave them to private discussion. (Though there is an obvious parallel in how America reacted to the doctrine of polygamy, namely proscribing it until the Mormon church officially abandoned it.)

But I am not -- we are not -- content to allow these false and wicked doctrines of Jihad and Dhimma grow up and expand in our midst. They are intolerable and should be declared so.

Again I must express my puzzlement at this talk of a dangerous dualism. To speak of a dualism between a true and a false doctrine is hardly an error.

You know, this blog is just another run-of-the-mill Americanist echo chamber, despite is somewhat loftier ambitions.

As for the status of Islam versus Hinduism and Buddhism to Christianity, the official position of the Church is as follows: "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (CCC 841)

My God, Linda gets her knowledge of Islam from the David Horowitz people. I suppose she admires Mark Steyn too. Sorry, but these clowns make Weigel look like a great sage. I ask again: how many Muslims do you actually know?

What that quotation from the Catechism (a rather unfortunate one which, IIRC, is actually a quotation from a Vatican II document) has to do with the question at hand, which is whether this site, founded in part in explicit opposition to the Jihad, engages in scaremongering and stupid jihadism rhetoric, is unclear to me.

As for being an "Americanist echo-chamber," a quick perusal of this should disabuse the attentive reader of any such nonsense.

Our position is pretty simple, really: that the institution and doctrine of Jihad, whatever its relation to Islam as such, constitutes a totalitarian menace which is growing in influence in the West every day; and that to oppose this institution and doctrine (institutions and doctrines being different from men) is a duty laid upon us as Christians and patriots.

How many Muslims do I have to know to have a qualified opinion? Three or more? Does it matter if they are Shi'a or Sunni or Suphi? How actively Muslim do they have to be? Do Muslims that have converted to Christianity count? Or more to the point, what does that have to do with anything?

I can't speak for Lydia, but I've known a few Muslims over the years. In fact I had two Muslim roommates in college - two brothers - along with their mother for a time. They were Jordanians, sons of a wealthy banker, and somewhat worldly. We would consider them "moderates". I enjoyed their company immensely, along with their many friends I got to know as well. It was a pleasure to have friends who took truth and religion seriously. We often stayed up into the early morning hours discussing (and yes, arguing) theology. One of the brothers - his name was Ahmed - told me that I would need to learn Arabic, read the Koran, and convert to Islam or I would burn in hell. I pretty much told him the same thing in reverse with respect to Christianity (sans the language requirement). Everything was good natured and we remained friends.

Then the Gulf War was launched.

Our friendship changed. The boys were furious at President Bush; I defended Bush and the invasion. They toned down their anti-American rhetoric in my presence when they realized I meant business (unusual among their other American friends). But mostly they were furious at Israel and the Jews, for whom President Bush was a puppet. Those who know me know that I'm no friend of Judaism. But the raw, vile, all-consuming hatred for the Jews and all things Jewish that I heard from these brothers was shocking. And disgusting. In their eyes, all Jews were dogs and there was nothing a Jew could possibly do to redeem himself. No punishment was too severe for the Jews. I had encountered racial hatred and malice before, but nothing this political and tribal, nothing so central to the identity of a group.

We didn't talk much about jihad. They usually condemned Islamic terrorists when I brought up the topic, but on some occasions they would defend the actions of terrorists. They made distinctions between terrorist acts that I didn't understand. They hated King Fahd of Saudi Arabia because they thought he was a sellout, a traitor to Islam. Would these boys have supported 9-11? They had very different temperaments. Ahmed would probably have supported it with enthusiasm. His brother, Nassir, perhaps not.

I had other Muslim friends in college as well. The Iranians were the most "moderate" and secular, as they were refugees from Khomeni's Revolution. But the others all seemed to follow the same pattern: virulently anti-Jew, suspiciously silent about Islamic terrorism, and openly anti-American whenever it was safe to be. My sense is that support for terrorism, jihad, and dhimma is not a fringe, extremist aberration among middle-eastern Muslims, but is decidedly mainstream, with adherents differing only on tactics. Mr. Cella is correct: Islam and the West cannot, and will not, "peacefully coexist" unless Islam is powerless.

My wife's father is from Afghanistan; he and his siblings emigrated (mostly to America) decades ago. I've been to a Muslim wedding of (my wife's cousin), and I have dozens of Muslim relatives on the extended side of that family. I couldn't say what most of them would think about jihad, etc. I do know that my father-in-law and his brother both dislike Islam (in part because of what the Taliban did to their country), and say so in terms so harsh that MM would faint dead away.

Again, I ask, what is it about that America that always needs an "other" to demonize? From the Salem witches to Know-Nothing Catholic plots to communism to "jihadism" (even to the recent scapegoating of priests)....it's pervasive in the history of this country. I think you all know what I believe on that matter.

What is it about Europeans that they always need something about America to demonize? Whether its political movements or its (mostly imaginary) Calvinism or the words of its Constitution . . . it's pervasive.

MM -- are you familiar with the history of Catholicism in Britain? Not exactly free from persecution, now was it? Or with the history of witch burnings in Europe? What makes you think that those faults are peculiar to America's history?

You would be wiser to ask, what is it about humanity . . . . Then you wouldn't be in the awkward position of purporting to oppose demonization even in the process of demonizing America for faults that are universal.

Jeff Culbreath's comments about anti-semitism are fascinating. And by the way, the anti-semitism in Islam goes far back and deep. In fact, what Jeff says fits extremely well with the (cough, cough) supposedly reassuring encounter reported in that silly article MM cited that was supposed to enlighten me. Here are all these Muslims at a mosque listening with approval to this imam spouting vile anti-semitism and 9/11 conspiracy rhetoric (which they make it clear that they buy), but it was so reassuring to talk to the students into the night afterwards because...because...well, because they were "surprised" at being told that the author personally knew Jews who had died on 9/11, and because they asked how they could come to America by the time the conversation was over. Wow, do I ever feel stupid for having "scare-mongered."

I say "fools" because I'm being reserved and charitable. In my experience on the Internet, people who are so quick to contest any use of the term "anti-semitism" invariably are bigoted towards Jews, which is precisely why they're unhappy that there exists a term of disapproval for anti-Jewish sentiment.

To Morning's Minion, Pope Pius V was "Americanist", "postmodern", and "relativist"; not to mention that he suffered from a dualism which insists on inventing an Other to oppose where one does not exist in reality.

My one objection to Paul's post is that MM's commentary is not really consistent enough to be ultramontane. An ultramontane would ignore ecclesiology entirely and consistently toady to whatever the Pope says: what the Pope says would be true because the Pope said it. An ultramontane wouldn't pick and choose things based on predetermined ideology, in the by now classic cafeteria style. MM's commentary is frankly more like the sort of thing we hear from Limbaugh or Ann Coulter: it doesn't even rise to the level of being coherently wrong, and serves not an intellectual purpose at all but rather serves as a veneer of Oprahhriffic validation for those whose minds are already made up in a certain mold.

Like Limbaugh or Coulter there are times when MM is more or less accidentally right; but it is a mistake to take any of their commentary seriously on that basis.

I have always assumed that when one is talking about God's plan of salvation, one is talking about eschatology and the four last things, viz. death, judgment, heaven and hell. I would only note that, insofar as this is the case, God's plan of salvation includes all of creation, even those who will be damned and cast into everlasting fire.

Being part of God's plan of salvation does not make one incapable of committing gross evils or teaching perfidious falsehoods. The devil and his angels have a part to play in God's plan of salvation. That doesn't make Satan cease to be the father of lies and the prince of darkness.

I've known Muslims in my time. The two ex-Muslims I know very well never want to go back. One of them got beaten into the ground in Azerbaijan by a crowd of Muslim ... oh, gee, I guess they were moderates.

I second Zippy's designation of Vox Nova as "the debate club at Auschwitz." What drivel.

Dhimminitude is alive and thriving where I live - in a suburb of Sydney. Among a population here in Belmore/Lakemba with a falling dominant Greek presence, lots of Buddhist Asians, and a substantial Muslim presence, it is truly frightening to see the future appear around the corner. As a Christian one gives another his way: the Buddhist just carries on; the Greeks smile; but the Muslim takes it for granted that I have honoured him as superior. There is no smile nor recognition of my presence. On the trains, a cleric determinedly reads his Koran and looks up to glare at all those around him.

Almost every car in my area has a religious symbol on the mirror: worry beads, rosary, or black, gold-framed Muslim plaque. Once they see the beads, the driver subtly takes advantage of the traffic situation: no give! People very quickly silently sum up which side you are on. There is a silent war going on - one which no-one in the media, nor in society at large is willing to admit.

And the sheer unity of male presence in the streets around a mosque around the corner, is totally different from the Buddhist private culture and the Greek easy-going nature.

We are dealing here with a very strong decidedly dominant culture with no competition from a dying Christian culture. Our Catholic children just are not there anymore. And there is nowhere else to go because it is becoming the same in many other affordable suburbs.

Globalisation and multiculturism fit well the growth of Muslim culture. We Christians are truly in peril right now.

Again, I ask, what is it about that America that always needs an "other" to demonize? From the Salem witches to Know-Nothing Catholic plots to communism to "jihadism" (even to the recent scapegoating of priests)....it's pervasive in the history of this country. I think you all know what I believe on that matter.

Posted by Morning's Minion |

Yep, that's right: we Americans always generalize. :-) It looks like Self-Refuting Man has a sidekick, sort of like Robin.

BTW, I'd take the know-nothings over the brownshirts any day. Come to think of it, I'd take the Salem Witch Trials over the gulags and the concentration camps. I would take George Bush and Richard Nixon on a bad day over Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin on a good day. In fact, I would take the red-neck "uneducated" ordinary American monolingual fighting men that saved that wretched continent from another one of its many cigarette-smoking coffee-shop dwelling multilingual utopian despots. It was the hicks from Kansas that made possible the pontificating sophisticates that now spend their time pissing on Kansas. I know it galls you, but deep down you know that the only safe place for a metrosexual pacifist to preach unmolested is one in which he is surrounded by armed and courageous men like John McCain who have his back.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect that if those 2 planes that hit the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 were hijacked by members of the Christian Coalition and they flew them into abortion clinics that you would NOT ask, "What did we do to make these religious people do this?" No, you would hold them accountable as moral agents and start investigating whether their like-minded nut case friends are thinking about doing the same thing.

All that some of us are suggesting is that you extend the same respect to the moral agents of Islamofascism, for which you make excuses, that you extend to the agents of Christian fanaticism that you rightly loathe.

I note MM's reference to Robert Spencer as "the David Horowitz people." I would imagine that no one is more aware than Horowitz that Spencer knows a lot more about Islam than he does. Spencer speaks of Islam with authority and knowledge, and MM and anyone else would do well to pay attention. Not that I think that likely to happen in the case of MM!

At a time when serious Christians are seeking out the "creative minorities" so as to sustain their faith, Minion revels in entering the catacombs to exploit and inflame the natural fault lines that exist within the community. For reasons known only to him, he sows discord and demoralization through sophomoric taunts and intra-denominational baiting.

Do we have to respond in kind? Hitler,Stalin and Mussolini (Franco outsmarted all 3 and saved his nation in the process) and the "isms" of the last century are no more emblematic of European civilization than Disney World, Planned Parenthood and Guantanamo are the ultimate expressions of American culture. Any Christian who can look at France and not see Louis IX, Joan of Arc, Moliere and Bernanos, or forget the Germany that produced Boniface, Bonhoeffer, Stein and Ratzinger is taking the fatal step of unconsciously turning on one's parents.

I have no idea where Minion comes from ("Anglosphere" is a concept, not a place) as he appears deracinated and without a country. But unless he changes, I fear where he is headed. It falls to us to offer him a better compass and refuse his invitation to mindless food-fights that eviscerate the symbiotic bonds and vital organs of memory and solidarity necessary for civilized life.

I laughed when Zippy had the gall to accuse me of being like Limbaugh and Coulter, and then moved onto the screed written by the other supposed Catholic among this bunch, Francis Beckwith -- honestly, this sounds like something that could come from the mouth of any number of right-wing radio blowhards. The issue is quite clear: Beckwith, and many others among you, think in narrow American ideological terms. Hence the author of this post dubs me a "liberal" without bothering to define his terms, again, like Limbaugh and Coulter. It fits with the "jihadism" and "islamofacism" rhetoric, and the implicit glorification of violence that underpins much of the rhetoric.

"All that some of us are suggesting is that you extend the same respect to the moral agents of Islamofascism, for which you make excuses, that you extend to the agents of Christian fanaticism that you rightly loathe."

This shows quite clearly that you simply have not understood anything I have written. It grieves me greatly that a great many American evangelical converts to the true faith bring their narrow dualistic ways of thinking with them. And if you think Beckwith and Zippy are accurately representing the Catholic faith around here, you are mistaken.

But maybe you are right. The US is not so different. After all, when faced with the grave and evil menace of IRA terrorism, the UK decared a "war of Catholic fascism", bombed west Belfast to smithereens, threatened America for funding terrorism, and started torturing people. Oh no, wait...

I'm still appalled by the Beckwith rant. Not only is he arguing with some strawman who does not share by opinions (I';m not going refute things I never said), a strawman that fits is dualistic view of American politics-- but the whole reasoning is so pagan in nature. It is only through "armed and courageous men" that we can have peace and security.

Well. I do confess that my phrase "ultramontane Liberal" was uttered half in jest -- as a jocular attempt to capture the confusing amalgam of arguments we're heard from MM. I'm open to a better description if anyone has one.

In any case, I use the term Liberal here to designate (a) a reluctance to make important distinctions, like the distinction between Islam and Christianity on the justice of aggressive warfare; and (b) a generalized hostility or least deep-seated ambivalence about the justice of self-defense. If the Jihad threatens us (having already demonstrated its capacity for mayhem far beyond anything ever contemplated by Irish terrorists) and we take steps to defend ourselves -- including, for instance, the deliberate step we at WWwtW have taken in denouncing the doctrines of jihad and dhimma -- why, according to Liberalism it is we who are promoting and glorifying violence.

Let's hear it for armed and courageous men. And here I have the democracy of the dead on my side, including many, many good Catholics of many years past. Like, you know, the ones who defended the gates of Vienna.

...the implicit glorification of violence that underpins much of the rhetoric.

This is perhaps the only extent to which I might find the slightest agreement with you.

And if you think Beckwith and Zippy are accurately representing the Catholic faith around here, you are mistaken.

I believe it was Mr. Prejean who stated about Zippy in this regard:

"Fair enough, but the point of the original post is that this is a temptation if you aren't careful and that one ought to be all the more careful about those sorts of temptations. Both rigorism and laxism come from an uncharitable exclusion of the person, and people who aren't even Catholic can detect that sort of thinly-veiled contempt. It's a systematic sort of unkindness to treat a person like a theoretical object rather than a personal moral agent. Reducing actual people and personal situations to "supposals" of your moral theory is the same problem described in the scientific context by Dr. Carson.

That's why, despite his vehement protests to the contrary, I think that Zippy is a thoroughgoing modernist and positivist in the moral sphere (he analogized moral acts to software classes, for example) . If that was indeed his past, he hasn't really escaped it.

And I don''t think this is the sort of isolated behavior that one can chalk up to excessive personalization. The theory begets the result: people who disagree with his rigorism are immoral for doing so; therefore, they are condemned of personal fault in the concrete. That's what positivism in the moral sphere produces. So the personalization in this instance was simply a concrete instance of the theory working itself out. Irritation at me might have provoked it, but what he did was just par for the course for someone who disagrees with his theory. There has to be some ethical violation involved in dissenting from his theory; it can't possibly be his fault. Ironically, the whole anonymity schtick is the ultimate depersonalization; he has made himself into a theory, since we cannot create any personal context.

I think he's in a dangerous situation, and as someone holding out himself (albeit anonymously) with the name "Catholic" on several sites, I think he has some responsibility to correct it. I tried my best to remedy that situation and failed. But I don't think we can gloss over the problem as being personal. This sort of thing corrodes discussion among Catholics and creates a bad impression for non-Catholics. If you're going to define yourself by the label "Catholic," you have a greater responsibility not to do those sorts of things, and I certainly consider that with everything I post on my blog. And of course, people know my name, and they can speak to me personally when I deviate from their expectations."

Personally, although there are those unique instances wherein I might disagree with Zippy's p.o.v. as one being genuinely 'Catholic' in perspective, I must say that his views are more align with Catholic Teaching than your own especially given your willingness to compromise certain Catholic beliefs and principles for the sake of polity!

but the whole reasoning is so pagan in nature. It is only through "armed and courageous men" that we can have peace and security.

There are many Christians throughout history who would find such an assertion positively baffling. Clovis I, Charlemagne, the Knights Templar (officially endorsed by the Church, mind you, which is much more significant than a modern American "teaching" re: gun control), etc., etc., etc. You need to break out of your modernist and secularist European blinders, and start to think with the Church as it has functioned throughout history.

There is a strain of utterly pagan reductionism in American geopolitical rhetoric, according to which order is contingent, not upon law and all of the accoutrements of high civilization, but solely or primarily upon the exertion of military force; the metaphysical postulate of such rhetoric is that order is a function of will, power, and violence, and not of law. To be certain, this "passion for the real" has informed some of the Bushian rhetoric, and not a little of a strain of popular (pseudo) conservatism; assuredly, it lies behind the assertion, by the administration, of exorbitant and unconstitutional executive privileges, the institutionalization of torture and illicit surveillance techniques, and the mythos of the president as the Decider, the inviolable Sovereign who determines when, and to whom, the law shall be applicable, and who, by the mystical alchemy of his will, can transmute unlawful and immoral acts into the highest virtues by merely invoking that all-purpose penumbral emanation, "national security".

None of this, however, has any bearing upon the status of jihad in Islamic orthodoxy, upon the imperatives of licit self-defense, or any such thing. Abuse does not invalidate the licit use.

...assuredly, it lies behind the assertion, by the administration, of exorbitant and unconstitutional executive privileges, the institutionalization of torture and illicit surveillance techniques, and the mythos of the president as the Decider, the inviolable Sovereign who determines when, and to whom, the law shall be applicable, and who, by the mystical alchemy of his will, can transmute unlawful and immoral acts into the highest virtues by merely invoking that all-purpose penumbral emanation, "national security".

Interesting how Maximos presents this as an exclusively Bushian fault, neglecting to point out in fairness that in the weeks post-9/11, the democrats themselves (as some even now) were practically agreed upon such exorbitant, unconstitutional actions for the sake of "national security" due to the overwhelming sense of vulnerability and heightened anxiety about terrorism at the time with the possibility of immediate subsequent attack(s) on U.S. soil.

Allow me to state in plain language that certain opinions of a particular website (to remain unmentioned here lest I give them further publicity as the sensationalist media had already granted them in the past) were not always the opinions of the democrats then.

The latter had just started adopting such opinions, presenting them as their own and jumping into this bandwagon in recent years in an attempt to bolster public support for their political party.

Interesting, I have similar concerns with Zippy. For all the invective he throws my way (Coulter! Limbaugh!), I still respect his sincerity. I just feel that he posesses a rather basic knowledlge of moral philosophy that he pushes to extremes, and there the weakness shows. Rigidity is indeed a problem.

On your other point, which always seems to come up here: exactly what Catholic beliefs and principles have I repudiated? All I have ever said is that Obama is a far more favorable candidate than McCain, despite the former's support for abortion. As for me personally, I support the whole corpus of Catholic social teaching. I'm not in the cafeteria. Others are, and you know who they are. But again, if you think that an earnest Catholic cannot choose Obama over a man I fear will initiate a devastating war, then you have fallen victim to Zippy's misinformation.

Oh, and a quick response to the references to CHurch support for various wars in the past-- that is not the criterion. The criteria are the just war principles, which remain as valid today as ever. If Americans had bothered to listen to St. Augustine rather than St. George Bush, then the ruinous and evil war in Iraq could have been avoided. And we need to remember that the bar for a just war in the modern day is far higher than ever before. As Cardinal Ratzinger once put it: "given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war.""

Interesting how Maximos presents this as an exclusively Bushian fault...

That was scarcely my intention. The Democrats not only cheered such abuses of office during the Clinton administration, and lent formal cooperation to the extension of such abuses under Bush, but even now, despite the incandescent passion of their base, continue to bestow a bipartisan legitimacy upon such usurpations. Obama, after all, flip-flopped and opted to support the ex-post-facto legitimation of the Bush surveillance regime. Why? Obviously, because they share in the consensus, and hope to utilize the very powers they revile - but consistently authorize - when exercised by Republicans; after all, both wings of the duopoly support the Empire, and the Empire requires a measure of lawlessness for its perpetuation.

Why, then, would I single out the Bushites for opprobrium? Because the Dems have been relatively consistent in the post-Cold War period; the Republicans, by contrast, denounced such extravagant claims of executive power under Clinton, yet hastened to embrace them under Bush. The Dems, in other words, have been consistently wrong; the Republicans, on the other hand, have shown themselves to be cynical and opportunistic: it's bad, bad, bad when the Dems assert such privileges, but Republicans are the saviours of Americanism when they assert the same privileges. The GOP only believes that its functionaries should exercise such powers, not that the powers themselves are abusive and unjust, this, because the GOP considers the Dems' imperial methodologies insufficiently robust.

Paul: that's a rather strange definition of "liberal". I see it as a philosophy based on the individual over the person, private liberty over the common good, and the belief that one can define one's destiny apart from any unchanging moral law. As many have noted, the current US divide that people like Francis Beckwith seem to have bought into so readily is merely a conflict between cousins, two different shades of Enlightenment-era liberalism.

"...the Republicans, by contrast, denounced such extravagant claims of executive power under Clinton, yet hastened to embrace them under Bush."

They used to battle Wilson & Roosevelt tooth and nail and resisted JFK and LBJ until along came Nixon, the neo-cons and a host of purported evils perpetually threatening "our way of life." Thanks to the last 8 years, the screws of the expanded security state will soon turn against pro-lifers*, home-schoolers and other "enemies of the State."

I'm not familiar with that particular quote of someone else talking about me, nor of where it came from. I did send a commenter packing from my blog, not because of his arguments, but because he kept pretending to speak for me while saying all sorts of things I never said. I don't have much patience for that, no matter who is doing it, and no matter who it is done to: it is a particularly pernicious form of calumny. MM did the same kind of thing to the commenter Brendon in a thread here, and if it had been my thread I would have given him one warning with a requirement of explicit retraction, after which he would have been outta here. I'm just that impatient with the practice, plus with my authoritarian streak I am less reluctant to kick out the idiots than some of my colleagues. Consider it a pet peeve.

But everyone should always remain aware of the fact that when I discuss things, I discuss what I think is true. I don't pretend to speak on behalf of the Church, ever. In those places where the Church speaks in my writing, it is only because I actually quote Her.

As for the notion that my views are positivist or modernist or whatever, it is difficult to imagine a more nakedly transparent attempt at tu quoque. Some gratuitous assertions are unworthy of a response.

As a general thing nobody is obligated to agree with me, unless I happen to be right, in which case the obligation still is not to agree with me but rather to agree with what is true.

I suppose I'll briefly address the notion that I am a moral rigorist. Those who think I am a moral rigorist frankly have no idea what they are talking about. "Rigorism" - that is, the heresy rigorism - does not mean "thinking rigorously about morality" or "being overly strict". Rigorism is a probabiliorist notion: roughly, the notion that if it is probable that doing X is wrong according to the opinions of moral theologians, that very fact makes doing X actually wrong.

Rigorism, like its much more popular probabiliorist sibling laxism ("if I don't know that it is wrong it isn't wrong"), is a form of moral relativism. Characterizing my thought as rigorist is like characterizing Plato's thought as nominalist.

I'm not familiar with that particular quote of someone else talking about me, nor of where it came from.

It was at S.V. I'm rather surprised you missed it since you actually posted right after him.

I must admit, Zippy, considering the incident at the time, there were aspects of his comments about you (i.e., strictly speaking with regards to your stance then -- don't know if you still presently hold them) that could be found reasonably valid and true. In that sense, I'm not necessarily surprised should Mike, Scott, and perhaps even M.M. might voice similar concerns reflective of that of our Harvard Law friend here.

Generally, I find your understanding of the Faith reasonably consonant with tenets of Catholic Teaching. However, there are those unique instances when it seems you deviate as in the case mentioned.

I'm rather surprised you missed it since you actually posted right after him.

Could be. My memory is like a sieve when it comes to unreasonable things people say about me. Take a number and step in line.

I don't doubt that there were aspects of his comments that could be found reasonable, valid and true. That wasn't what was at issue -- at all. What was at issue was him pretending to speak for me. Not quoting me and saying "I think it follows that ...", but just stating that I hold positions I don't hold. The former implicitly acknowledges that the assumptions of the commenter himself are built into the inference, and that I might not agree with them. The latter is just a lie, and discussions with liars are unproductive: pigs, wrestling, and all that.

When a commenter persistently and after multiple attempts at correction says that I hold positions that in fact I do not hold, I quickly lose all interest in further discussion with that commenter, and in anything else that commenter might have to say about, well, anything.

"Rigorism is a probabiliorist notion: roughly, the notion that if it is probable that doing X is wrong according to the opinions of moral theologians, that very fact makes doing X actually wrong."

You do this all the time. Example: when you argue that supporting somebody like Obama is an absolute moral bad, when in fact the argument is highly probabilistic. I once brought up the vigorous debate over whether provision of nutrition and hydration to patients in permanent vegetative states was ordinary care, and thus morally obligatory; and extraordinary, and therefore not. Anybody familiar with this literature will tell you this was a huge debate, and people of virtue arrived at different conclusions-- including the bishops of Pennsylvania and Texas. Both sides had good arguments. I once listed some studies that tilted to the extraordinary side (including some top-notch theologians) and your conclusion was pure dismissal: these people are flirting with evil. This is your rigorism in action (aided and abetted by a lack of familiarity with whole areas of moral theology). Now, in an effort to sort this out, the US bishops queried the CDF, and the response was that it was ordinary care. So, you were right-- as you often are-- but almost accidentally (funny how you accuse me of the same, isn't it?)

Here is another definition of rigorism that I rather like: "The moral teaching which holds that when there is a conflict of two opinions, one in favor of the law, the other in favor of liberty, the law must always be observed, even if the opinion in favor of liberty is the more probable or very probable one as compared with its opposite." (New Catholic Dictionary) You don't see yourself in this description?

No, I don't. In order for it to be the case that I assert a heretical form of probabilism, it would have to be the case that I actually do assert some form of probabilism. Those who characterize my positions as rigorist skip over that wee detail for a reason.

You don't see yourself in this description?

Not even slightly. Indeed, I see my anti-self. On countless occasions I've expressly rejected the notion that a conflict of opinion has any bearing whatsoever on the objective moral permissibility of an act in itself. The opinions of theologians and Bayesian constructions therefrom do not alter the objective nature of an act to make it either permissible or impermissible. (It may or may not be objectively prudent to accept certain opinions, of course, which is a legitimate 'probabilistic' discussion to have generally although one I don't find particularly interesting. But the objective prudence in accepting or rejecting an opinion about act X from theologian T is clearly distinct from the objective moral permissibility of act X).

Again, people who see rigorism - or any form of probabilism - in my thought don't understand either rigorism or my thought.

MM is like a broken record, unable to consider the facts or to come up with a good faith response.

We've been through all of this before. As part of the progressive New Deal that MM loves to praise, Roosevelt gave his corporate big-wig friends what the Supreme Court called “virtually unfettered” power to regulate industry throughout the land, and to prevent small competitors from cutting their prices. Thus, for example, Roosevelt and the chicken industry (”Big Chicken,” one might say) came up with an industry code, and a few months later, the administration prosecuted a small seller of chickens, fined him over $7,000, and tried to throw him in jail for, in the Supreme Court’s words, “permitting customers to make selections of individual chickens” rather than forcing customers to pick an entire coop or half-coop.

MM never faces the facts here; he never admits that such a scheme was evil. Instead, he resorts to name-calling (or what he views as name-calling), i.e., calling me a "laissez faire liberal" (as if one would have to be laissez faire to oppose such an anti-competitive fascist scheme).

More to the point, in the Vox Nova post I linked above, MM excuses the evils of the New Deal by saying that its designers had good intentions: "You are confusing the application of the NRA in practice with its original intent. Its intent was in accord with CST, geared towards allowing workers to share in the ownership of productive wealth. There were of course inherent problems with the approach, especially related to attempting to regulate prices (always a disaster)." To which I pointed out, and still point out, that on that ground, MM cannot oppose the Iraq War -- after all, Bush says he had good intentions too.

I'll just add that the main two points of my post -- (1) "It will not do to understand Islam and its doctrines of Holy War and Holy Subjugation exclusively through the lens of Western politics." (2) "Nor will it do to conflate warnings about the peril of these doctrines with support for the democratic imperialism that has characterized much of our post-9/11 foreign policy." -- have not yet been addressed by MM.

MM prefers to argue well, virtually everything, in the context of how "it plays into a dualism that is quite dominant in American discourse." Everything through that Western lens. Furthermore, MM constantly argues within the strict confines of another context -- the Iraq war and the Bush administration -- which many of us have emphasized is precisely what we want to set aside as our context, not least because most of us share his opposition to the war.

MM argues, in short, as a kind of Imperial Nominalist, and the rest of us wonder if we have fallen into the narrative of a Bob Dylan song:

Dr. M, he keeps his world
Inside of a leather cup
But all his reckless patients
They're trying to blow it up
Now his nurse, some local loser
She's in charge of the cyanide hole
And she also keeps the cards that read
"Have Mercy on His Soul"
They all play on penny whistles
You can hear them blow
If you lean your head out far enough
From Desolation Row

Oh, and a quick response to the references to CHurch support for various wars in the past-- that is not the criterion. The criteria are the just war principles, which remain as valid today as ever.

It's worth noting the utter oddity of this "response." MM had claimed that the admiration for "armed and courageous men" is "so pagan in nature." Some of us responded by pointing out that MM is ignoring much of the history of Christianity, and substituting secularist European values instead.

To which MM responds by claiming that there exist "just war principles"? Huh? How is that relevant at all here?

Thank you, SB, I suddenly thought of exactly that last night. Glad someone else said it. It's funny how by mere strength of insistence a completely irrelevant response can be made to sound relevant and can throw one for a little while.

"MM excuses the evils of the New Deal..." Sorry, but I cannot tae seriously anybody who believes yje New Deal was "evil", especially given the Catholic history behind it.

Let me spell it out to SB, who seems a little slow today: war must always be a last resort. As Pope Benedict says, was its alwaysa sign of failure, nothing to be proud of. This is not consistent with an attitude of military glorification, which exists in the US today, and is more similar to pagan Rome than to St. Augustine who tried to fight that very thinking.

Sorry, but I cannot tae seriously anybody who believes yje New Deal was "evil", especially given the Catholic history behind it.

Sorry, but I cannot take seriously anybody who thinks that anything labeled "New Deal" is therefore blessed by God, and who still doesn't have the intellectual capability to address what actually happened under the National Recovery Act (i.e., Roosevelt and big business collaborating in throwing small businessmen in jail for serving their customers).

And let me spell it out for the functionally illiterate: the phrase "evils of the New Deal" doesn't mean that everything that happened under the New Deal was evil; it means that some things that happened under the New Deal were evil. And lo and behold, I referred to precisely one of those evil things: the fascist system of cooperation between big business and government in order to stifle competition.

Since the people on this site seem to take great umbrage with the morality of supporting Obama, let me ask this question: why is there not similar outrage about McCain (after all, he is also a manisfest supporter of an intrinsically evil act)? Some of you are abstentionists, and that is fine, but others (certainly Francis Beckwith) seem to be supporting McCain. Will you therefore answer these questions: (1) are there contributors who support McCain? (2) If so, will you not condemn their position with the same intensity that you oppose those who support Obama?

For the record, on Vox Nova we have some who abstain, some who support Obama, and some who support McCain.

1: I have discussed the facts behind the National Recovery Act at least three times with MM.

2: MM is never willing or able to respond specifically as to those facts -- he isn't willing either to say that the Catholic Church requires big business to throw its small competitors in jail, or that the Catholic Church would frown on such a practice.

3: MM is a reasonably intelligent fellow, with a PhD from Columbia in economics.

4: MM is not uninformed as to this issue; he has seen the facts several times.

5: MM is inventive and clever, and if there's even a half-hearted unconvincing argument to be made in favor of a so-called "progressive" policy, he will make it.

6: Hence, the fact that MM has never been able to respond directly as to the National Recovery Act means that he is conceding that the New Deal was, in fact, evil in this respect.

Point conceded, then, and I shall refer back to this comment when necessary in the future.

...war must always be a last resort. As Pope Benedict says, was its always a sign of failure, nothing to be proud of ...

War must always be a last resort -- that is, it is only just when it is necessary. War is always a sign of failure: it is necessary only in a fallen world, and only when someone has done terrible wrong. Simply stamping your feet and insisting that this is incompatible with admiration for armed and courageous men doesn't make it in fact incompatible with admiration for armed and courageous men.

Open heart surgery is a last resort, and is always a sign of disease. This is not incompatible with admiration for the skilled surgeon.

Jailing a violent criminal is a last resort, and is always a sign of failure. This is not incompatible with admiration for policemen.

Examples can be multiplied, as there is no shortage in this world of last resorts, and responses to last resorts which are always a sign of failure - responses undertaken by admirable men.

The issue is not that we should not admire armed and dangerous men, it is that MM (like most modern progressives) hates armed and dangerous men, and makes false appeals to false principles in an attempt to justify that hatred.

NO, MM argues through the lens of Catholic teaching.

You missed Paul's point completely. You argue as if everyone you were arguing against was a George Bush 'conservative'. Your ideology is a one-trick pony, incapable of existing without the particular Other against which you have set yourself. This leaves you in the position where you have to insist that every argument you encounter is an argument advanced by that particular kind of Other; for if it were not, if those you argue against were not "Americanist dualists" or whatever label you want to use today - of which there are doubtless plenty to argue against down the street and around the corner, just not here - then your self-justification starts to crumble.

You also do argue as if your opinions and Catholic teaching were coextensive, when they obviously are not. Like it or not, there is no Catholic doctrine on gun control, for example. We are left to make up our tiny little minds ourselves, not told what to do in detail, on a whole host of issues. Catholicism is not similar to Islam in that the Catholic version of Sharia conforms to MM's opinions. There is no Catholic version of Sharia.

If so, will you not condemn their position with the same intensity that you oppose those who support Obama?

Mincing words is not a practice of which I am ordinarily accused, as MM well knows.

I think supporting McCain is wrong, bordering on crazy, for reasons I've extensively discussed here and elsewhere. (I said something similar about George W. Bush in 2000, where I argued among other things that a Bush presidency would do more damage to virtuous conservatism than any Democratic presidency could possibly do. I leave it to the reader to assess the post facto merit of that prediction).

I think supporting Obama is vile, despicable, evil, disgusting.

I see no reason to treat them, though both most definitely wrong in my view, as equivalent. Indeed I think they are definitely not equivalent. I view thievery and child molestation as both unequivocally wrong, but not equivalent.

In fact, MM, if it weren't for people like you, supporters of McCain would have far less of a leg to stand on. Both wings of modern politics, the left and the right, get their energy and sustainance from each other. You may not think of yourself as a Bushism supporter, and certainly as a formal matter you are not, but as a material matter it derives all of its energy from people just like you.

"The issue is not that we should not admire armed and dangerous men, it is that MM (like most modern progressives) hates armed and dangerous men, and makes false appeals to false principles in an attempt to justify that hatred."

Rubbish. As you well know, the most basic principle of the natural law is the right to life from conception through natural death. There are very rare occasions when it can be licit to take life, but it is never something to admire. I would expecte the man who kills another man in self-defense to ask for forgiveness, not proudly parade his actions. And your attempt to tie me to "modern progressives" on this is slightly off the mark, given that I am thinking primarily of the teaching of the Church fathers. St. Bsail is Caesaria springs to mind. Noting that killing in war was different from homicide, he nonetheless noted that "it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that their hands are not clean".

The argument is not really the validity of a profession, but the glorification of it. Last I heard, prison guards were not put on a pedestal and worshipped as great heroes and defenders of society. Remember, engaging in military activity is licit only in a just war-- do you think people make that distinction when they proudly declare they "support the troops" (many of whom are in an unjust war)? No, they do not, they instead worship the trappings of pagan power.

One more point on "modern progressives". Pope Benedict has often wondered why two core parts of morality are sundered. Why do people either support peace and justice on one hand or life and family on the other. The point is that the two aspects of morality are inseparable. And if the so-called "conservatives" get it right on life and marriage, then the so-called "progressives" get it right on war and peace.

"Like it or not, there is no Catholic doctrine on gun control, for example."

And there is no Catholic doctrine on whether the Iraq war is unjust. Instead, there are clear principles and rather obvious facts and circumstances. Ideology is often as stumbling block to reaching the obvious conclusion.

That is your opinion, but it actually not that relevant to the question I am asking which is whether a Catholic may choose Obama in the polling booth, knowing it is a relative choice. If you assert that supporting Obama is an objective moral evil, then you are in effect declaring formal cooperation with the instrinsically evil act(s) suppotyed by Obama. But if this is the case, then it is just as illicit to choose McCain, given that he too supports intrinsically evil act(s). And yes, some might be worse than others, but one still cannot choose evil of any form.

You may of course acknowledge that voting does not entail formal cooperation, but still argue that supporting the relative choice of Obama is wrong (a different argument to abstaining). But that is nothing more than your own prudential judgment, weighing up the different considerations.

Its funny you when accuse me of supplying energy to the Bushians-- I always know when Zippy is making an error because he accuses me of that very same error! You go around making offensive Nazi references to Vox Nova, while the Republicans lap it up. You denounce me with great venom for supporting Obama over McCain (recognizing the utterly imperfect choice), while treating Francis Beckwith as a kindly confused old uncle for making the opposite choice. You remind me of the Irish government during WW2, vehemently declaring their neutrality, when quietly cooperating with the British.

Finally, if you think I am an American partisan, you are not paying attention. I am part Christian Democrat, part corporatist, and I have little time for nationalism or militarism. You mistake a particular choice in particular circumstances for a wholesale embrace of an underlying movement.

If you assert that supporting Obama is an objective moral evil, then you are in effect declaring formal cooperation with the instrinsically evil act(s) suppotyed by Obama.

Well, no, I am not. I've spent a lot of time crafting my arguments, and that isn't my argument. You are in effect declaring that formal cooperation with evil is the only way to do evil, it seems to me; but in any case you are criticizing something that is not my argument.

You go around making offensive Nazi references to Vox Nova, while the Republicans lap it up.

I compare Vox Nova's Obama apologetics to Hitler supporters debating the nuances of the legality of gassing Jews, or of supporting Hitler while not supporting the policy of gassing Jews, because that is precisely how I see Vox Nova's Obama apologetics. Nobody is required to see things as I see them, of course, unless how I see things happens to represent the truth.

Obama is a moral monster, and you objectively support him, and you engage in whatever tortured rhetoric is required to make you feel OK about giving him that support. That's just the way it is.

And by the way, I've spent a great deal of effort specifically convincing pro-lifers that they do not have to politically support Republicans, that indeed they probably should not do so: that the false choice presented by our present politics is in fact a false choice. You have done nothing of the kind when it comes to the party of abortion: you are just transparently a shill for them. Congratulations.

There are very rare occasions when it can be licit to take life, but it is never something to admire. I would expecte the man who kills another man in self-defense to ask for forgiveness, not proudly parade his actions.

If such a man acted licitly, what is there to forgive? How can a just action require forgiveness? And how can justice not be admirable?

"Since the people on this site seem to take great umbrage with the morality of supporting Obama, let me ask this question: why is there not similar outrage about McCain (after all, he is also a manisfest supporter of an intrinsically evil act)?"

Excellent question. Catholics divorced from the empty shrine that is at the heart of our political order know that should McCain win, he will be faced with several obstacles to attacking expanding operations in the Middle East.

First, the Pentagon has no interest in such an undertaking. They are not going to expose 145,000 American troops to the danger of encirclement and having their supply lines cut-off in Shite controlled southern Iraq. Few of the uniform leadership thinks the Iranian nuclear threat is "imminent" and none want to see the world's oil drum go up in smoke.

Second, with even greater control of Congress the Democrats may actually, pardon the vernacular, grow a pair and placate their anti-war base by frustrating McCain on the authorization and spending side.

Third, the American people have no stomach for preemptive war and McCain does not want to limp through 4 years with an approval rating hovering in the mid-teens. However, both he and Obama are so vulnerable to the allure of libido dominandi ("we can remake the world") and the sweet ministrations of AIPAC, that either could do something catastrophically stupid in this regard.

Which leads to this obvious factor; what again is the difference between Obama and McCain on military interventionism? Obama has "revised" his views on Iraq (he accepts our presence there for several more years), he now sounds like McCain on Iran - all options are on the table - and his foreign policy advisors are the same old lackeys of the Imperium that have dominated his party since Woodrow Wilson - WWI, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Serbia and several lesser side-shows.

When it comes to abortion, there are no legal/legislative impediments to prevent Obama from making good on his pledge to sign FOCA into law. Should he win, Catholics will be left hoping either Obama experiences a Pauline-like conversion, or that he has been lying for his entire public life.

I hope that helps you better understand the repugnance that greets the whole; "I'm a pro-life Catholic and shill for Obama whenever I can" routine.

-------------------------------------------------

In case you missed it FOCA will invalidate the following, hard-earned protections for the unborn;

-- The Hyde Amendment, which prohibits most federal funding of abortion, and the laws of many states that restrict state funding of abortion.

-- Laws in effect in some jurisdictions that bar abortions in government-operated hospitals.

-- Laws requiring parental notification or consent, or judicial authorization, before an abortion can be performed on a minor daughter.

-- Laws requiring that girls and women seeking abortion receive certain information on matters such as fetal development and alternatives to abortion, and then wait a specified period before the abortion is actually performed, usually 24 or 48 hours.

-- "Conscience" laws, allowing doctors, nurses, or other state-licensed professionals, and hospitals or other health-care providers, to decline to provide or pay for abortions.

"You are in effect declaring that formal cooperation with evil is the only way to do evil, it seems to me; but in any case you are criticizing something that is not my argument."

I know you never say what I said explicitly but you do believe in a set of objectively evil acts that is larger than is actually the case, so the effect is largely the same. When you say "Nobody is required to see things as I see them, of course, unless how I see things happens to represent the truth", that is exactly right, except the statement that "It is evil to vote for Barack H. Obama in the United States in 2008" is not "truth", it is your prudential judgment, your assessment of the proportionate reasons for doing so. It must be based on such questions as the power the person will have to implement the act in question, the effectiveness of bringing about the supported policy, the effectiveness of any policy once enacted to achieve its goal, and the relative gravity of the good and evil acts from voting for each of the candidates. All of this is probabilistic.

I used to respect you a lot more when you argued for abstention and a "pox on both their houses". I respect that position a lot. But even though you are not personally a McCain supporter, you give succour to those who are. Not only do you play down his support for at least one intrinsically evil act on the current policy radar (embryonic stem cell research), but also that the whole nature of his candidacy is based on a level of bellicosity that should perturb any Christian. I find it intriguing that serious Catholics who support Obama do so in spite of his policies on abortion, and yet the McCain supporters seem to enjoy the warrior rhetoric.

"And by the way, I've spent a great deal of effort specifically convincing pro-lifers that they do not have to politically support Republicans, that indeed they probably should not do so: that the false choice presented by our present politics is in fact a false choice. You have done nothing of the kind when it comes to the party of abortion: you are just transparently a shill for them."

First, please refrain from making statements about me that refer to things you cannot possibly know. Second, you share a blog with Francis Beckwith, who not only suports McCain (as he is entitled to) but also seems to be a rather run-of-the-mill Republican shill and seems to enjoy the "warlord" aspect of McCain's persona. Maybe you should think about that a little before spewing forth juvenile calumny against Vox Nova. If you want to take the moral high road, I expect a higher standard.

Not only do you play down [McCain's] support for at least one intrinsically evil act on the current policy radar (embryonic stem cell research), ...

Play it down? What universe do you live in? I've made numerous posts generating hundreds of comments on the subject. I don't think there is any excuse for supporting McCain -- though again, it is precisely people like yourself who act the counterfoil, providing the grounds for the (inadequate) justifications which are offered. A lot of people are going to vote for McCain for no reason other than to (attempt to) stop people like you from further cementing the 'right to abortion' in our culture. That is just a truth that you have to live with.

And yes, a lot of people are going to vote for the abortion party for no other reason than to attempt to stop neoconservative warmongering, with McCain at the head of the column.

There is a very real sense in which both sides deserve each other (though their victims do not). Perhaps in some corner of Hell they will get to play it out for eternity. I sincerely hope you aren't among them.

...please refrain from making statements about me that refer to things you cannot possibly know.

I'm not talking about things I don't know, I'm talking about things I do know. In public, in the things you write and publish for the world to see, you've never found an excuse for supporting the abortion party that you didn't like. Maybe some people don't think that is a fair, objective assessment of what you've published. I think it is.

Gee, Zippy has been saying for a long time on his blog that some people think "prudential" means "isn't objectively wrong," and along comes MM and proves his point.

the statement that "It is evil to vote for Barack H. Obama in the United States in 2008" is not "truth", it is your prudential judgment, your assessment of the proportionate reasons for doing so. It must be based on such questions as the power the person will have to implement the act in question, the effectiveness of bringing about the supported policy, the effectiveness of any policy once enacted to achieve its goal, and the relative gravity of the good and evil acts from voting for each of the candidates. All of this is probabilistic.

Let me just say that my favored candidate certainly exhibits a "level of bellicosity" which would induce MM to grow faint, and yet he does not perturb this Christian. Far from it. And I have a great pope's backing in saying that bellicosity does not preclude a man from high office.

My candidate is, of course the last knight who takes weapons from the wall, the last and lingering troubadour. He is holding his head up for a flag of all the free. He is liberator of the sick and sunless captives. His trumpet sayeth ha! Domino gloria! He is Don John of Austria, going to the war.

I will take my advice from Pope St. Pius V rather than MM in believing that I may cheer and honor and admire this soldier and captain -- that there is nothing unchristian in it --, who at 25 years old delivered the West from the tyranny of the Jihad of the Turks.

There is no dishonor, there is not even suspicion, at admiring armed and courageous men.

There is a great deal of merit to your point about the jaded ideological warfare on both sides, with each embracing a fundamentally flawed athropology that is at odds with revealed truth. What I like about this blog is that it is willing to take such a stand. What I dislike is that it actually doesn't do so. You have Lydia, who buys into the bitter partisan neocon agenda of David Horowitz and his minions. You have Francis, who is run-of-the-mill Republican who admires McCain for his bellicosity and his adolescent "codpiece diplomacy". These are your friends, and I see precious little criticism from you on that front.

What's Wrong with the World? you ask. How about "What's Wrong with a World War"? Or do I sound adolescent about making quips about a blog's title?

"the character of Islamic doctrine and practice depends upon the actions of the West"-- this is not an either/or issue (that dualism again!). Islamic theology will develop in line with Islamic thought, and nothing we say can influence that. But one needs to be in willful denial not to recognize that the actions and rhetoric of the west can lead to a great blowback, threatening the stability of the world. I know many of you agree with this in the context of the Iraq war; what I am saying is that your very rhetoric can lead to the same result. It is not just the actions of the West that enrages Muslims, but the perceived lack of respect, the result of a once-great civilization reduced to rubble in the context of intellectual backsliding. Muslims want to be left in peace, not to impose sharia on the west, and listening to the voices of an extremist minority simply plays into the hands of these extremists.

What's Wrong with the World? You give an intreresting answer. Liberalism and "jihadism". Nothing about the huge economic inequality between rich and poor, the climate crisis, the bellicose nationalism of China and Russia, the warlordism in Africa...just.. "jihadism"...

"'Never again war!'. No, never again war, which destroys the lives of innocent people, teaches how to kill, throws into upheaval even the lives of those who do the killing and leaves behind a trail of resentment and hatred, thus making it all the more difficult to find a just solution of the very problems which provoked the war. Just as the time has finally come when in individual States a system of private vendetta and reprisal has given way to the rule of law, so too a similar step forward is now urgently needed in the international community. Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that at the root of war there are usually real and serious grievances: injustices suffered, legitimate aspirations frustrated, poverty, and the exploitation of multitudes of desperate people who see no real possibility of improving their lot by peaceful means." -- Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus.

It is my firm belief we are about to see a development of doctine in this area, which will severely circumscribe the justice of war in the modern era. I will repeat the speculation of Joseph Ratzinger, that I quoted earlier, on this topic: "given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."

Oy, vey, I guess MM just doesn't like me. He used to say it was because of a comment I made apropos of the death penalty, but as I've retracted the wording of that and clarified my point, he knows he can't get away with beating that dead horse. So now it's because I recommend the learned and knowledgeable Robert Spencer (acknowledged to be so even by those who don't like him) over the rank and laughable ignoramuses MM admires on the subject of jihad and Islam. I've mentioned Horowitz only in response to MM's dragging his name in to say that I'm sure he knows that Spencer knows more about Islam than he does, but to MM the real offense apparently lies in recommending an expert on Islam who writes for the magazine of and is a friend of David Horowitz. That earns the label "neocon," which is a nice way to avoid engaging the mountainous evidence Spencer has produced on the subject.

I wear MM's dislike as a badge of honor, but honestly, isn't his unremitting nastiness towards Zippy and Frank, and his unremitting attempt to set us all by the ears (which ain't gonna work) getting a tad tiresome? Go away, MM. We're sick of your warmongering.

Oh, and by the way: I might _start_ to listen to your silly attempted parallel between yourself and Zippy as regards voting in this upcoming election when you post on Vox Nova saying in so many words that it's _wrong_ and _crazy_ to vote for Barack Obama. That statement in a comment box will do. Then I'd like you to write several carefully reasoned posts (you won't be able to do that part alone) followed by lengthy comments threads (where you take heat from your fellow...er...vox nova-ites) in which you say that the voting system in our country is corrupting because it makes people feel like they need to vote for the likes of Barack Obama. Please use the term 'cannibal' to describe Obama. I'm not picky: You can do that part on a personal blog if you prefer.

Then you might remotely begin to look like Zippy must look to supporters of McCain who follow his writing. I have no intention of regularly reading any blog of yours, but y'all who pay attention to these things, let me know when he does that stuff. All of it.

what I am saying is that your very rhetoric can lead to the same result. It is not just the actions of the West that enrages Muslims, but the perceived lack of respect, the result of a once-great civilization reduced to rubble in the context of intellectual backsliding.

My judgment is to the contrary. The really dangerous thing is to allow ourselves to embrace falsehood about Islam -- "religion of peace" -- in order to placate this rage at disrespect. The really dangerous thing is to repeat or permit lies in the service of politeness or propriety.

I believe very firmly that the rhetoric of this country ought to rise and intensify against the Jihad; that all this pussyfooting around like a bunch of little girls (I hope Lydia will forgive me for that) when we talk about Holy War, Jim-Crow-for-Infidels, the terrible devsirme, and the rest of these doctrines, enervates, stupefies, befuddles and distracts us -- and, paradoxically, invites our wooly-headed politicians to engage us in ambitious projects of world revolution via war rather than concentrate on more simple and obvious and less reckless policies of self-defense.

And I will go on tolerating, promoting and even celebrating a certain bellicosity and verbal extravagance, that twinge of indignation and passion, in the curses we hurl down upon the doctrines which impel our enemies to war.

MM cites a great pope who, though not yet declared, shall surely be a saint. I'll just cite another who already is:

"Meanwhile the Pope himself was conversing on business with some of his cardinals; but on a sudden he turned from them abruptly, opened a window, and remained for some time with his eyes fixed on the sky. Then closing the casement, he said, 'This is not a moment in which to talk business: let us give thanks to God for the victory He has granted to the arms of the Christians.'" -- Butler's Lives of the Saints.

Right. You see abortion as nothing but an excuse people use not to support the likes of Obama, with all the putative benefits that come along with supporting him. To me, that looks just like someone seeing Auschwitz as nothing but an excuse not to support national socialism, with all the putative benefits that come along with supporting it. That's just how I see it -- as a direct consequence of taking the humanity of the unborn seriously.

all this pussyfooting around like a bunch of little girls (I hope Lydia will forgive me for that) when we talk about Holy War

Not a problem at all. I would only go one better by reflecting that real little girls are often devastatingly blunt and quite fierce in their conversation about bad guys, so perhaps "wimps" or "girly-men" would work even better.

Paul-- you scare me, you really do. I haev never called Islam a "religion of peace" (in fact, I've repeatedly pointed out is weaknesses, especially its voluntarism). But I also believe that "the plan of salvation includes the Muslims" and that Islam is no threat to civilization. Sinhalese Buddhism has also be invoked to justify violence, violence of a nasty nationalisic sort, and yet you do not rant and rave about this. I could present countless other examples. No, the problem with you closet Calvninistic Americans is that you must always have that one great "other" to demonize. It used to be communism, taken to such an extreme that accomodation with monsters at least as bad as their communist enemies was deemed virtuous, given the grea battle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.

"That's just how I see it -- as a direct consequence of taking the humanity of the unborn seriously."

I seem to recall Robbie George once arguing that, based on the scale, ECSR is even worse than abortion. I expect you to put your money where your mouth is and condemn, in equally vociferous terms, those who support McCain. I expect you to follow through with the logic of "taking the humanity of the unborn seriously". And by the way, not that it is any of your business, but I will not be voting for Obama. All I have ever said is that he is vastly preferable to McCain, and that Catholics can in good conscience make that choise. The issue that really annoys me is hypocrisy, and I'm looking at it right now.

Finally, here's a question for Paul and others who think like him on Islam: I've see repeated references to the "gates of Vienna". Please explain to me how a bunch of extremists living in caves, with scarcely any support for their ideology, are on the verge of overthrowing the west? Can't you find a better enemy to demonize?

Please explain to me how a bunch of extremists living in caves, with scarcely any support for their ideology, are on the verge of overthrowing the west

Of course, the extremists who have actually succeeding in their razzias were most of them middle class folks, apparently assimilated to Western mores and customs: engineers, doctors, graduate students entering our countries via those very student visas you want to expand. Many of them were internet-savvy, working out apartments in Hamburg, London, Madrid.

I don't believe anyone here has said they are on the verge of overthrowing the West, but evidence of their influence in pervasive. Whole sections of European cities are now effectively "no-go" for the police, while shariah law is replacing secular law. Even in the United States, Saudi-backed Wahhabism has penetrated Islamic prison ministries, military chaplaincies, schools, libraries, mosques; Jihad-sympathizing propagandists have been brought in to lecture federal agencies on Islamic etiquette; moderates have been driven from mosques by Saudi-backed radicals; our security services are compromised.

In short, we are hamstrung by our unwillingness to face facts about the Jihad.

It used to be communism, taken to such an extreme that accomodation with monsters at least as bad as their communist enemies was deemed virtuous, given the great battle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.

Hey, I'm happy to go on cursing the Commies if you'd like. Indeed, I think the regime of legislation and enforcement brought to bear against the Commies in the 1950s (like the similar regime brought to bear against Nazis, anarchists, polygamists, Copperheads, Jacobins, etc., in earlier ages of American history) has much to recommend to it.

It's not about dualism, demonizing the Other, or any of your other hang-ups. It's about self-government, which I will confess, has long been an American preoccupation.

And by the way, I didn't start referring to Vox Nova as Debate Club at Auschwitz when its members started shilling for Obama. I started referring to it in that way when the proposition was put forth by one Vox Novan that subsidiarity justifies the pro-choice position, and nothing but cricket chirps came from the other Vox Novans, even when they were directly asked their opinion on the proposition.

As soon as you start openly referring to Obama as a medical cannibal and an abortion nazi on Vox Nova, as I openly refer to McCain as a medical cannibal here and on my own blog, you'll begin -- just begin -- to have some standing to actually discuss the matter with me. Until then, as Lydia said, go away.

Ah, I see you have "redacted" my request for you to show some minimum consistency and accuse your blogging partner Francis Beckwith as doing something equivalent to supporting Nazis. If you want to your play stupid games, you'd better have the courage of your convictions (and no, I am not going to play your silly games, so please don't there). No cricket chirps, but stone-faced silence. You are a coward and a phony.

I started referring to it in that way when the proposition was put forth by one Vox Novan that subsidiarity justifies the pro-choice position, and nothing but cricket chirps came from the other Vox Novans, even when they were directly asked their opinion on the proposition.

Well, that's not precisely true. A couple of them lied by claiming that Gerald Campbell's clear words, as directly quoted, meant something else.

If a contributor here were claiming that subsidiarity justified embryonic stem cell research (or its funding by the federal government, or its legality), I leave it to readers to determine whether they believe, based on my past writing, that I would

It appears that even to so-proclaimed "Pro-Life" folks, the fact that abortion is actually murder seems ever so elusive a concept.

Perhaps if Obama vowed instead to sign as Law upon becoming president an Act that would allow for the states-sponsored murder of elderly parents by their burdened adult children, wherein such the murderous acts of such, most especially, the agony of the victims, were personally witnessed by these individuals; there might be:

1. the realization by Zippy that if ever PDE would indeed apply, this would be a particular instance wherein a vote for Obama's opposition is a valid alternative to such evil and, in fact, a necessary move to prevent it.

2. the realizaton by Morning's Minion that his candidate is indeed a fiend whose Pro-Murder agenda disguised as American 'right' is nothing but and should not be allowed to take the reins of the highest office in the land by which executive power he would effect such acts of murder to the farthest reaching extent into Law.

Too bad it's only the FOCA that Obama has promised (time & again in no uncertain terms) his presidential signature onto -- an Act that would merely enable universal accessibility of abortion wherein such abortions shall be guaranteed, facilitated & funded by tax-payer dollars -- that is, something hardly immoral; let alone, evil.

After all, people are already committing acts of abortion anyway.

Since folks are already indulging in this lovely pastime, what's say we make it a government-sponsored sport for the masses to enjoy no-holds-barred?

aristocles:
FWIW, MM did overtly state that he will not be voting for Obama; and God bless him for that.

I wonder what sort of rapproachment might be possible if we formed a political association intended to pair potential voters in a tryst: I promise, on pain of mortal sin, not to vote for McCain if you promise not to vote for Obama (or I promise not to vote for either if you promise not to vote for either). Maybe we could whip up a quick Ruby on Rails app to do the pairing -- though of course it would be dependent on the honor of participants, so as an Internet thing it is somewhat problemmatic.

I've been following the Zippster for a while now, and this accusation of omission is laughable. This is a blatant and transparent attempt at deflection on your part, MM, which is usually a sign of cowardice and weakness. If you aren't familiar with the thousands of very harsh words Zippy has written against McCain and his supporters, I suggest you quit making an a** out of yourself and familiarize yourself with them rather than pretend they do not exist.

So--Zippy's right. His writing speaks for itself, as does yours.

You are a coward and a phony.

That's just plane dishonorable of you, MM. You sit behind your electronic shield and your fake name and call another man a coward and a phony because you don't like his opinion and you don't like the fact that he has handily dismantled your position. In spite of his frustration with you, Zippy has met you with nothing but honor.

I don't know if you are a coward or just deluded that you are a legendary warrior of words by your image in the mirror as you flail with your plastic sword. But I know that Zippy has *acted* honorably and courageously in this whole exercise, and I know that you have acted dishonorably. In any given challenge I would rather have a single Zippy at my side than a thousand of you. I have every confidence in his courage--I have no confidence in yours.

I suggest you remove all mirrors and plastic swords from your premises. You would grow up a lot faster if you would do so.

I grew up in Las Vegas. So, I know what a shill is. Do you? It is someone who works for the casino and plays at the table in order to get others to play.

I am not a Republican shill. I am a Republican. I play at the table with my own money, not the house's.

But first and foremost I am a Christian, which means that I am a citizen of two cities, one earthly and one heavenly, with the latter taking the precedence over the former. In the first city--the city of man--things can get messy. This is why utopianism is a heresy, whether by the right or the left.

Between the two candidates for the presidency, there is only one utopian. And I am not going to vote for him. That, of course, does not mean that the other is perfect. He is far from it. But I would rather place my trust in the faith of his fathers than in the dreams of the other's father.

Frank: I disagree with your assessment and conclusions, but I respect your right to form your conscience in the way do do. My disagreement is with Zippy whose embrace of the moral high ground on this particular matter is decidedly selective.

Zippy: the problem is this outmoded first-past-the-post system. Get some form of proportional representation, which would do wonders for the emergence of smaller parties. Then let's all get together in a Christian Democratic Union or something like it -- we won't win any majorities, but we would have a voice at the table (plenty of precedent in Europe).

It would behoove you to observe common decency in your remarks most especially on an ecumenical forum where a majority of its participants span across various denominations.

Although I myself may find disagreement with a number of interlocutors here for obviously 'Catholic' reasons, it would be remarkably insensitive of me (not to mention, needlessly spiteful) to hurl vicious slurs at its members principally for the fact that they are Protestant by affiliation and/or thought.

If you are to represent yourself as 'Catholic' here, please do not dishonor the Church (and yourself, for that matter) by so undignified and blatantly offensive a demeanor.

By all means, be frank in your remarks (and not necessarily "Beckwith") but don't go so far as to select so injudicious an expression as to deliberately offend the religious sensibilities of your opponents. Thanks.

Interloper: yes, one man behind a computer and a fake name insults another man behind a computer with a fake name, adnc vice versa...how deliciously post-modern!

Is that a kink I see in your plastic sword? What does that move look like in the mirror? Does it remind you of Conan?

MM--apparently you have no sensibility at all for honor and dishonor. You didn't just insult someone. You called their honor and their courage into question. Zippy did nothing of that sort to you or anyone else in this discussion. There are many reasons to have a pseudonym--only one of them is for phony cowards to hide behind.

You bring dishonor upon yourself, chum. Quit while you can still recover.

Zippy:I'm not familiar with that particular quote of someone else talking about me, nor of where it came from. I did send a commenter packing from my blog, not because of his arguments, but because he kept pretending to speak for me while saying all sorts of things I never said. I don't have much patience for that, no matter who is doing it, and no matter who it is done to: it is a particularly pernicious form of calumny.
...
What was at issue was him pretending to speak for me. Not quoting me and saying "I think it follows that ...", but just stating that I hold positions I don't hold. The former implicitly acknowledges that the assumptions of the commenter himself are built into the inference, and that I might not agree with them. The latter is just a lie, and discussions with liars are unproductive: pigs, wrestling, and all that.

Since you have publicly accused me of calumny, I think I ought to say something here. First, I have never heard of a reductio ad absurdam being a form of calumny. No one will readily admit being saddled with the absurd consequence, but his defense is to objectively show where the conclusion does not follow, not to accuse the other person of lying simply because he does not want to own what the other person has reasonably argues was a consequence of his position. Second, I made extremely clear exactly why I thought that your position necessarily implied the consequence of which I was accusing it. I'm not going to go with some namby-pamby, watered-down statement like "I think it follows that..." when I in fact believe that it necessarily follows, i.e., that the statements are objectively equivalent. Indeed, the former might well be misleading, since it suggests that I view the difference between us as a reasonable difference of opinion, which is not the case. I am not asserting the statement as my personal belief, but as the necessary conclusion of your position. viz., that is is impossible for you to hold your stated position and NOT to hold the absurd conclusion. Consequently, I made no such pretense as the one of which you accuse me.

You can accuse me of inadequately supporting my assumptions, but the simple fact that you "might not agree with" my assumptions does not somehow impose a moral obligation not to assert them as being objectively true (and the contrary as objectively false or impossible) and does not suffice to make my assertion that those consequences are objectively necessary a deliberate falsehood. I could well be wrong in my reasoning, but that is not the same thing as lying, since I in fact believe that your failure to share my assumptions is precisely due to an objective error on your part. Nor is it "pretending to speak for you" when I made it exceedingly clear (along with Mike Liccione and Scott Carson) as to why I believe the consequence is entailed (i.e., that it takes a positivist view of Magisterial teaching that does not view Magisterial moral teaching as materially being a restatement of principles existing in the natural law). I am entitled to make those assertions, and no reasonable man would take them as lies. Thus, I believe that you have misstated what was at issue in the original discussion, and I request that you withdraw the accusation of calumny, since I am an honest man and since I have not lied about you.

I would hardly protest being banned from your blog. I consider you as one with just enough knowledge to be dangerous, and it is my opinion that people are more likely to suffer spiritual damage from speaking with you than to obtain any information useful for edification in the faith, so I would caution people to avoid it for their spiritual well-being. That is my judgment; perhaps the facts are different. But the public accusation of calumny goes quite a bit beyond what you do with your own blog, and if you are going to make those accusations, it is your duty to support them with evidence and argument. I have seen none here, and I have made it quite clear why I believe the original record doesn't show them either.

MM:Example: when you argue that supporting somebody like Obama is an absolute moral bad, when in fact the argument is highly probabilistic.

Since you seem to have enlisted my statement, I should point out that I do NOT consider this as an example of what I was pointing out. It is intrinsically a grave error even to support any law that in any way increases the freedom of abortion or gay marriage, because such laws are intrinsically unjust laws. Note that this is NOT because the prohibited conduct itself is intrinsically evil, but rather because it is the particular role of government to prohibit them, so that refusing such laws attacks the fundamental nature of government itself into a tyranny. Marriage and the protection of innocent life are the "first things" of government; violating them perverts the fundamental good of government, irrespective of the end effects. This is not the case of error in performing a legitimate government function (e.g., waging war, capital punishment), but of denying the function altogether. The question is not which one will reduce evil, but of the particular sort of evil that is reduced, and in the case of government, the more pertinent, fundamental, and essential functions are the ones that must be protected first.

Consequently, the "first things" we must consider with any candidate are their positions on the so-called "non-negotiables" (abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and human cloning being a reasonably good short list of real issues at present). Candidates who are wrong on these things are necessarily perverting the government itself, so at that point, it must simply become a question of limiting the harm to the point that we have the closest semblance to a legitimate government that we can. What that government does after that is only ancillary to the question of whether the government can even be called legitimate at a fundamental level.

As far as I can tell, Obama is simply worse than McCain on all of the non-negotiables. While I agree that there is room for judgment, I can't see any actually reasonable way for concluding that Obama is going to favor more restrictions on these issues than McCain, and since we're effectively choosing between tyrants, we have to pick the closest thing to a legitimate executive that we can, then hope he does the best. If someone were to honestly take the position that Obama would do more to restrict the freedom of abortion and gay marriage, then I agree that such a person could prudently do so. But I can't see how one could reasonably arrive at that judgment.

I am not going through this with you again, and I did not introduce you into this discussion. My blog archives are there for the whole world to see, if I have treated you unfairly. You expressly said "putting words in your mouth is fair game", after I had warned you not to, and that is what got you banned. Even if my prior assessment of what you wrote as "putting words in my mouth" was wrong, your express claim to a right to do so is what specifically got you ejected.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.